Emojis are a means of conveying emotion in a succinct manner. Since certain emojis, such as the okay symbol, mean different things to different people, it loses it's effectiveness as a means of communication over a broader audience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_gesture

And emojis only work in response to written context. Try using only emojis to communicate a lunch meeting date, place, and time. You would need thousands of emojis to communicate effectively versus using a limited number of characters (26 if you're an english speaker).

I don't think we are at any risk of sliding back into picture based communication. Drawn pictures are a way to to articulate a set of ideas or feelings that may be too nuanced, complex, or too long to express in written form when time or audience attention span is too short.

I'm not sure I agree with this. We used art to communicate ideas, but we don't use it to communicate in real time. That kind of communication is definitely a step backwards as far as nuanced communication. I keep coming back to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The reduction in language skills and particularly vocabulary size worries me when combined with the emergence of emojis as acceptable language.

Maybe this is a reaction to the recent (50 years) bloat in mass-produced literature that was discussed in the Range thread. Dunno. Still, it worries me that we'll reduce our thinking skills to a handful of easy-to-represent concepts like we've done with our communication skills.

Umm...television, anyone? You don't think Lincoln vs. Douglass was slightly different than Trump vs. Clinton? And the winner of the latter admits to his winning because of his employment of a technology that limits communication to less than 280 characters? That's characters. Not words. Billy Graham purposely reduced his use of vocabulary, I think to like 250 different words to simplify his message for the masses. Now we're down to 280 fucking characters.

Emoji's are not drawn communication like Van Gogh let alone hieroglyphs. Those had to be created by the user. Now people are just picking pre-packaged ones they want to use. And I would add, McLuhan matters. With a cave wall and a painting, the observer had to be physically present to view the picture/painting. Personality and proximity are no longer required.

I'm not sure I agree with this. We used art to communicate ideas, but we don't use it to communicate in real time. That kind of communication is definitely a step backwards as far as nuanced communication. I keep coming back to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The reduction in language skills and particularly vocabulary size worries me when combined with the emergence of emojis as acceptable language.

Maybe this is a reaction to the recent (50 years) bloat in mass-produced literature that was discussed in the Range thread. Dunno. Still, it worries me that we'll reduce our thinking skills to a handful of easy-to-represent concepts like we've done with our communication skills.

I agree that art isn't used to communicate in real time. But I don't consider emojis art. Emojis add basic emotional nuance to written conversations. An instant message without a happy face emoji may be construed harshly. Emotion is a difficult thing to convey properly in a written medium. I don't think most people who use instant messaging, twitter, facebook, etc., have the patience, time, or inclination to word their texts with nuanced emotional context hence the emoji use.

Complex art attempts to convey emotions at a glance and can act as a Rorschach test for the viewer. Emotions that would take entire paragraphs to convey can be surmised visually in a brief instant; the erudite can sit and ponder the image while the pedestrian art connoisseur can take a quick look and shamble on to the next distraction. Art can scale or diminish to the recipient's attention span and perception; text not so much.

Are you actually stating that a fucking smiley face conveys an emotional reality too sophisticated and nuanced to communicate through the written word? I guess everyone should put down "Madame Bovary" and just stare at a yellow fucking face blowing a red lipped kiss.

Are you actually stating that a fucking smiley face conveys an emotional reality too sophisticated and nuanced to communicate through the written word? I guess everyone should put down "Madame Bovary" and just stare at a yellow fucking face blowing a red lipped kiss.

No. I'm suggesting that a smiley face can change the reception of a short text from "what an a-hole" to " I see what you mean".

Understood. I thought you were referring to forms of communication outside of texting.

It's a complex discussion worthy of Noam Chomsky. Because this is what I'm experiencing. Hypothetically speaking, you put me at table with a first round NBA draft pick and/or middle schooler. Someone who grew up with texting as always being there. I provide him a masters levels paper on philosophy. He provides me his latest tweet. There is very high likelihood we both have no idea what we are reading. But our lack of comprehension is not limited to concepts that through further study, we can each reach an understanding. Its not a matter of expertise or familiarity with a topic. It extends to the forms on the page. We both need to be acclimated to the other's method. Each are texts, each are "written" but at certain points, they are in effect, two different languages.

When I read tweet exchanges or text exchanges, and sometimes email exchanges, I honestly don't comprehend what I am reading. So from that vantage point, I am functionally illiterate. I know young people sometimes use it as code, so parents can't understand it. But the question remainss, who's problem is it. Is it me, the reader, not adapting or learning this form of communication, or is it the writer's, not communicating properly to the reader.

(@) Jean

Maybe we can have a drunken poetry reading after we soberly beat the shit out of each other at your Poopapolooza in August.